Question CES 2019 - The beginning of the end for gsync?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hitman928

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2012
1,757
188
136
#26
My guess is all the freesync monitors that didn't give a large enough range to work within were a "fail". How large a range is anyone's guess but most Freesync monitors are garbage so it's not surprising that NVIDIA claims very few "pass". Even still, I'd have to think that way more than 12 out of 400 would be acceptable.
Yeah, I assumed that as well. My response was particularly about certain monitors that share the same panels (or virtually the same) panels as other monitors and yet some pass and some don't.
 

Reinvented

Senior member
Oct 5, 2005
486
3
91
#27
Yeah, I assumed that as well. My response was particularly about certain monitors that share the same panels (or virtually the same) panels as other monitors and yet some pass and some don't.
When I watched the presentation, they made it seem that if it doesn't pass their qualification, that it will end up having the "blanking" or "pulsing" as shown in the videos. So, I am skeptical, and worried...yet very excited for this to happen.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
936
166
136
#28
When I watched the presentation, they made it seem that if it doesn't pass their qualification, that it will end up having the "blanking" or "pulsing" as shown in the videos. So, I am skeptical, and worried...yet very excited for this to happen.
Which shouldn't happen given that it doesn't happen under AMD GPUs. It may just take some time for issues to be ironed out in NVIDIA's drivers.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
321
96
#29
Geee, over expensive proprietary b.s eventually has to cave to the cheaper open standard... Who would have thought.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
227
96
#30
Just another nV trap
No, it really is good.

In the past manufactures split effort building separate Freesync (often with barebones FS capability) and GSync monitors.

Now what many will do is build good FSync monitors that are also GSync certified/compatible.

Which means they will also be very good FSync monitors.

IMO the most desirable monitors are going to be FSync monitor wiht GSync certification even if you want to run them on AMD HW because you know they will have a high baseline of decent VRR features, and of course it leaves your future open to switching GPUs without losing VRR.
 

Guru

Senior member
May 5, 2017
585
164
86
#31
All of them will work, its just that not all can work at 144hz, which is what Nvidia seems to be testing, work flawlessly at a big enough resolution and 144hz, which I'm guessing most budget and mainstream freesync monitors will fail.
 

DisarmedDespot

Senior member
Jun 2, 2016
245
47
86
#32
I'm curious if they'll keep Freesync's Low Framerate Compensation, where Freesync still works beneath the minimum if the max is 2.5 times the min. My monitor usually only has a range of 40-75 hz, but if I OC it to 80 and drop the low end of the range to 32, I get VRR from 1 to 80. I recently went from am RX 580 to a 1080 Ti, so if this works out I'm set.
 
Aug 14, 2000
21,427
217
126
#33
nVidia's hand was forced much like they were forced to license SLI on non-nForce chipsets when Intel used their same tactics against them. I fully expect the "gsync compatible" monicker to have licensing fees.

Still, we have to give credit's where credit's due. This is a good move for consumers. More choice/competition is always better.
 

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
3,768
48
126
#34
Potentially good news here, as my monitor is on the list.
 

007ELmO

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2005
2,045
14
91
#35
feel like my alienware 34" $800 monitor was a waste if I could have just gotten a free sync monitor.
 

Despoiler

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2007
1,824
68
136
#37
What does a non-validated FreeSync gaming monitor look like?

The comments out the monitor brand as LG and the model. Low and behold no one with AMD cards are having the same issues. People even figured out that the blinking was because Nvidia is trying to push G-Sync into a range that the monitor doesn't support. What this means is that Nvidia isn't actually following the specification for adaptive sync. If they read the EDID like they are supposed to then the GPU would know what adaptive sync range the monitor supports and act accordingly. There wouldn't be blinking. They are trying to shoehorn their G-Sync implementation into adaptive sync. Most of this announcement is more of the same Nvidia deceptive marketing.
 
Last edited:

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,683
37
136
#38
The comments out the monitor brand as LG and model and low and behold no one with AMD cards are having the same issues. People even figured out that the blinking was because Nvidia is trying to push G-Sync down into a range that the monitor doesn't support. The demostration is Nvidia marketing storytime like it usually is.
Conspiracy theories even on Tech forums.

;)
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,132
55
126
#39
feel like my alienware 34" $800 monitor was a waste if I could have just gotten a free sync monitor.
Didn't you do research and select your monitor as the best option for you at the time of purchase? Weren't you happy with it all the way up to this announcement?

Not sure why you'd want poor mans g-sync to save a few hundred bucks. /s

I'm wondering if it's one of those pay to play as far as the certification process goes.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,186
457
136
#40
That day when YouTube teaches Nvidia to implement FreeSync. 2019 is off to a very odd start.
 
Oct 27, 2006
19,655
148
106
#41
feel like my alienware 34" $800 monitor was a waste if I could have just gotten a free sync monitor.
The majority of Gsnyc displays are better than the typical Freesync displays in my experience. Wider range of refresh, and superior smoothness especially when really hit with serious dips.

So it kinda depends on your content. If you play a lot of esports stuff at 100+ fps and don't have many dips, Freesync is a great value. If you're pushing AAA stuff at say 28-77fps all Ultra/Max, then a lot of Freesync displays will not fulfill things all that well.

It's a lot like how Nvidia has had Freesync laptops for a while now, but labeled as Gysnc. No Gsync module, narrow refresh range, but cashing in on the branding.

So it's a bit of both worlds. The fancy official Gsync module displays generally delivered a superior experience, but there absolutely was a high cost to them. FS is a bit of a mixed bag, but you get a lot of options from bad to really good.

So this news is a big win, just have to be careful with the actual specs and hope their drivers improve fast.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,671
108
126
#42
nVidia's hand was forced much like they were forced to license SLI on non-nForce chipsets when Intel used their same tactics against them. I fully expect the "gsync compatible" monicker to have licensing fees.

Still, we have to give credit's where credit's due. This is a good move for consumers. More choice/competition is always better.
There can't be licensing fee's to Nvidia but there might well be higher costs. e.g. the example they gave in that video of blurring was because that monitor disabled overdrive with freesync. That is because monitor maker didn't bother tuning it for all the different refresh rates available. Making something work properly takes effort, which costs money, which will get passed on in the final price of the monitor.
 

Wall Street

Senior member
Mar 28, 2012
685
6
91
#43
I like the idea of a free market solution, consumers are smart, if someone wants to buy a cheaper monitor that isn't as good, why should nVidia not let them? T

I view freesync/adaptive sync as similar to 144 hz, or 1440p. It is a specification and not a certification. Some people are saying that AMD is too loose in allowing the use of the freesync spec, but it is only a feature and not a certification program.

Freesync is available in some $100-150 monitors. Of course those monitors have a lot of compromises to hit those price points. These monitors work great in the situation where sometimes a game dips below 60 FPS but the framerate isn't too variable to need LFC, for example console games. These full monitors cost less than the $200 G-sync updcharge, so of course I do not expect the performance of a $700 ROG monitor. Clearly being able to get an affordable monitor with a 48-75 hz freesync range is better than having no variable refresh at all?

The problem with G-sync is that there is a market for variable refresh displays below the $500-700 market for G-sync monitors. nVidia was perfectly fine with consumers having to spend more and not letting monitor makers address this market with monitors which have compromises that gamers may be willing to accept. Now there is too much pressure from the mainstream with widespread VRR support from TVs, lower priced monitors, AMD GPUs and XBox, so nVidia can no longer ignore it.
 

Wall Street

Senior member
Mar 28, 2012
685
6
91
#44
My guess is all the freesync monitors that didn't give a large enough range to work within were a "fail". How large a range is anyone's guess but most Freesync monitors are garbage so it's not surprising that NVIDIA claims very few "pass".
nVidia said that they will only certify monitors with a 2.4x range of min to max refresh. That means that 30-75, 60-144 and 48-144 ranges work.

However, monitors with a minimum framerate of >40 hz will require a >100 hz maximum framerate, disqualifying a lot of the cheaper freesync monitors which only go to 75 hz.

edit: looking at the 12 'approved' monitors, 100% of them are 144 hz or 240 hz, so nVidia may intend to not to certify any slower panels.
 
Last edited:

ibex333

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
3,855
41
91
#45
Really, both G-sync and Freesync is a scam. There's no screen tearing or any issues whatsoever without them. I use a regular monitor with my 1080GTX and there is no screen tearing. All games look fine at any fps above 30.

To be fair, I don't play any FPS games at all. RTS and RPG only. But I never seen this "screen tearing" everyone talks about.
 
Oct 27, 2006
19,655
148
106
#46
Really, both G-sync and Freesync is a scam. There's no screen tearing or any issues whatsoever without them. I use a regular monitor with my 1080GTX and there is no screen tearing. All games look fine at any fps above 30.

To be fair, I don't play any FPS games at all. RTS and RPG only. But I never seen this "screen tearing" everyone talks about.
Lol what?

I went from a really nice 12-bit IPS 2560x1440 60hz display to a 3440x1440 Gsnyc and it was a gargantuan improvement. RPGs, FPS, hell even the smoothness of moving things around the desktop was far better.

I also tried RX580 with a mid-range 1440p Freesync and it was pretty good, though you have to lower some details to make sure it doesn't dip below FS range or it gets ugly again.

Going back to 60hz with dips is agonizing. Locked 60 is fine, but still inferior.

Freesync and Gsync are not close to a scam. VRR is the best improvement in display tech in ages. However, one could say that Gsync module displays are overpriced, and/or that some Freesync displays are a bit janky. But scam? No. Might not be a match for you personally though, and that's fine.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
936
166
136
#47
Really, both G-sync and Freesync is a scam. There's no screen tearing or any issues whatsoever without them. I use a regular monitor with my 1080GTX and there is no screen tearing. All games look fine at any fps above 30.

To be fair, I don't play any FPS games at all. RTS and RPG only. But I never seen this "screen tearing" everyone talks about.
You couldn't be more wrong but maybe it's not an issue for the games you play and your personal sensitivity to it. I almost exclusively play first person shooters and screen tearing ruins the experience. Going from a 60hz vanilla 1440p monitor to a 144hz Gsync 1440p monitor was probably the single greatest improvement I've ever seen from a tech purchase. Screen tearing is obnoxious and before adaptive sync I'd always tailor my settings so that I could pull as steady 60fps and use vsync to avoid the tearing but we know what that means in terms of latency, etc.

I can't go back to vanilla 60hz, I tried on a friend's machine and it was horrible.
 
Last edited:

repoman0

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2010
2,504
126
136
#48
^That guy is wrong about almost everything, don't worry about him.

Anyway, I always have the worst timing ... just got my $600 Gsync display early last year. Oh well, it's still nice and I don't plan to change GPUs or my display for years, so I'll get my money out of it. I knew I shouldn't reward obnoxious corporate locking in behavior, but I made my money back and more on NVDA stock and sold it all near the top. Now it's worth half that and we can all laugh at them.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
227
96
#49
You couldn't be more wrong but maybe it's not an issue for the games you play and your personal sensitivity to it. I almost exclusively play first person shooters and screen tearing ruins the experience. Going from a 60hz vanilla 1440p monitor to a 144hz Gsync 1440p monitor was probably the single greatest improvement I've ever seen from a tech purchase. Screen tearing is obnoxious and before adaptive sync I'd always tailor my settings so that I could pull as steady 60fps and use vsync to avoid the tearing but we know what that means in terms of latency, etc.

I can't go back to vanilla 60hz, I tried on a friend's machine and it was horrible.
While FS/GS is not a scam, I sometimes feel it is a bit overrated. If given the choice between one of those low refresh 40-75 Hz "freesync" monitors and 120-144Hz fixed frequency, I would choice the latter. IMO the high refresh trumps FS/GS, but both would be better.

With a 144Hz monitor, Vsync will cause less hitching on frame dips, and if I was really worried about the ultimate smooth, no lag performance in a competitive twitch game, I would simply run Vsync off, as that has less lag that FS/GS and is the fastest option at the expense of screen tearing which doesn't bother me that much in twitch games.

So I wasn't going to let FS/GS influence my next monitor/card purchase decisions. Now that there is the possibility of a good monitor that supports both, I will probably look for that on my next upgrade.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
936
166
136
#50
While FS/GS is not a scam, I sometimes feel it is a bit overrated. If given the choice between one of those low refresh 40-75 Hz "freesync" monitors and 120-144Hz fixed frequency, I would choice the latter. IMO the high refresh trumps FS/GS, but both would be better.

With a 144Hz monitor, Vsync will cause less hitching on frame dips, and if I was really worried about the ultimate smooth, no lag performance in a competitive twitch game, I would simply run Vsync off, as that has less lag that FS/GS and is the fastest option at the expense of screen tearing which doesn't bother me that much in twitch games.

So I wasn't going to let FS/GS influence my next monitor/card purchase decisions. Now that there is the possibility of a good monitor that supports both, I will probably look for that on my next upgrade.

I agree. If you can pull 120-144hz steady, adaptive sync isn't as big a deal. 100hz and below it's huge in my opinion. For some reason tearing just drives my brain nuts, even more so now that I'm used to gsync.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS